‘Staffed by writer-professors preoccupied with their own work or their failure to produce any; freed from pedagogical urgency by the tenuousness of the link between fiction writing and employment; and populated by ever younger, often immediately postcollegiate students, MFA programs today serve less as hotbeds of fierce stylistic inculcation, or finishing schools for almost-ready writers (in the way of, say, Iowa in the ’70s), and more as an ingenious partial solution to an eminent American problem: how to extend our already protracted adolescence past 22 and toward 30, in order to cope with an oversupplied labor market.’

There are of course still storytellers, geniuses honing their craft that will hold up a mirror and lens for humanity in the fire of their creative imaginations (well beyond the politics of the day in scope, and the wishes of hangers-on). Maybe they can be found at MFA programs, but I’m guessing they’re more likely doing other things: getting crippled on a naval campaign, spending their days in an attic, learning to navigate the Mississippi by steamboat, or acting and writing for a theater troupe.

Addition: And as a reader points out: learning how to communicate during the current technological revolution.

“As Strauss understood it, the principle of liberal democracy in the natural freedom and equality of all human beings, and the bond of liberal society is a universal morality that links human beings regardless of religion. Liberalism understands religion to be a primary source of divisiveness in society, but it also regards liberty of religious worship to be a fundamental expression of the autonomy of the individual. To safeguard religion and to safeguard society from conflicts over religion, liberalism pushes religion to the private sphere where it is protected by law. The liberal state also strictly prohibits public laws that discriminate on the basis of religion. What the liberal state cannot do without ceasing to be liberal is to use the law to root out and entirely eliminate discrimination, religious and otherwise, on the part of private individuals and groups.”

and:

“It seems that Strauss could not, in good conscience, be a believer in any ordinary sense of the term, but that did not prevent him from respecting Judaism’s ways and loving its wisdom. Strauss was persuaded that the ultimate claims of faith could never fully satisfy the criteria of reason. But he was also convinced that reason could not satisfactorily refute faith’s affirmations.”

‘Summary: To succeed in Afghanistan, the international community must tackle corruption, make aid more effective, improve cooperation with the Afghan government, pursue a regional solution to the conflict, and commit to long-term reconstruction.’

Europe obviously has a major security stake. Hopefully many European nations will accept this responsibility, and recognize that the aid/human approach may not be enough, even in these extremely difficult economic times. Leaving without addressing reasons why we’re there may lead to worse conflict.

“The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of human rights. The strong claims made on behalf of human rights (for example, that they are universal, or that they exist independently of legal enactment as justified moral norms) frequently provoke skeptical doubts and countering philosophical defences.”

And further on down the line, some humanists are pretty ‘aspirational’ as well as having a logo and a revised manifesto:

———————————————————————-

Here are a few questions:

1. How does one address the chasm between the cultures and societies of Western secular morality and other religions? or the larger chasm between Western civilization and the many non-monotheistic tribal societies? Is a raft of broadly based rights in European law also an extension of Western civilization to/upon other groups of people?

What moral obligations (and upon what principles) does the West base to other peoples through its laws? Wouldn’t some of the problems with the U.N. have to do with this kind of thinking?

2. How would secular humanists defend against/deal with the militantly religious? or a militantly agressive theocracy? or a militant nationalism with a standing army? or any other potentially existential threat?

3. Can humanism transcend the ideas that would merely lead to the growth of a secular state (which is part of what Stanley Fish might be objecting to), and the dangers and tragedies and excesses that have come with it this past century?

‘NATO is trying to turn the anti-missile system — initially opposed by the Kremlin — into a fulcrum for cooperation with Russia as part of the U.S.-driven “reset” of relations. Russia and NATO will create a “working group” on missile defense, according to an official Russian fact sheet.’

and

‘Russian leaders opposed the missile shield when it was originally proposed by former President George W. Bush, seeing it as a threat to Russia’s strategic arsenal. That plan foresaw permanent anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, two nations dominated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.’

‘Montesquieu would make most everyone’s top-ten list of political philosophers, but he is not prominent in the ranks of natural philosophers. Following the lead of the American Founders, who referred to him as “the celebrated Montesquieu,” we associate his name with new discoveries and improvements in the science of politics rather than science proper.’

“As Andrew Exum has pointed out, the whole issue of the U.S. relationship with the host country is fraught, especially because the desired outcome is different from the colonial goals of the countries on whose COIN experience the U.S. military has drawn most from, Britain and France of the 1950s and 1960s. The British and French were fighting to stay. We are fighting to leave, albeit leaving behind a friendly government, which I am not sure is possible, especially in the Mideast, if that government is to last.”